Firstly my opponent should know(reading the rules of DDO) unless explictly stated in the rules of the debate, I do not have to refute my opponents link. He needs to post a actual case or lose the debate not simply presuppose what he is trying to prove. My opponent has not fufilled his burden of proof. I needn't refute CNN because they are nonbais and cannot firmly take a position so :P
If this is allowed then:http://www.activistpost.com...

Drugs should be legalized because their unlawful status has not substantially reduced their use or availability. (1) This means that most resources directed towards enforcing their illegality are wasted.

I thank my opponent for his argument, i don't think its usually allowed to post arguments last round but whatever. Now onto his point, it doesn't matter whether it reduces drugs substantially or not. It only matters whether it does at all. Cold corpses speak louder than abstract freedoms, and legalizing all drugs will increase scale of robberys and illegal activity by ten fold, and it will introduce a new black market that isn't so secretive known as private enterprise. We need to stand by this.

Reasons for voting decision: Pro and Con disagree about whether laws against drugs are effective in reducing their use. Pro had the burden of proof, but provided no cited statistics to prove his case. Pro's source, however, was in-line with his position whereas Con's source was not (thanks to Bodhivaka for pointing that out!)

Reasons for voting decision: Neither participant presented any compelling arguments; however, Pro obviously used better sources. I doubt Con even read his own source, as it uses obvious satire to mock those who support drug prohibition.